REVIEW

Open Access

Turn TRAIL Into Better Anticancer Therapeutic Through TRAIL Fusion Proteins

Yan Wang

orcid.org/0000-0003-3070-9531

College of Agroforestry and Medicine, The Open University of China, Beijing, China

Contribution: Conceptualization (lead), Data curation (equal), Funding acquisition (lead), Visualization (equal), Writing - original draft (lead), Writing - review & editing (lead)

Search for more papers by this author

Xin Qian,

Xin Qian

Endocrinology Centre, Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China

Contribution: Data curation (equal), Visualization (equal), Writing - original draft (equal), Writing - review & editing (equal)

Search for more papers by this author

Yubo Wang,

Yubo Wang

Department of Pharmacy, Beijing Ditan Hospital Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

Contribution: Data curation (equal)

Search for more papers by this author

Caiyuan Yu,

Caiyuan Yu

College of Agroforestry and Medicine, The Open University of China, Beijing, China

State Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicines, Macau Institute for Applied Research in Medicine and Health, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau, China

Contribution: Data curation (equal), Writing - review & editing (supporting)

Search for more papers by this author

Li Feng,

Li Feng

College of Agroforestry and Medicine, The Open University of China, Beijing, China

Contribution: Data curation (equal), Writing - review & editing (supporting)

Search for more papers by this author

Xiaoyan Zheng,

Xiaoyan Zheng

College of Agroforestry and Medicine, The Open University of China, Beijing, China

Contribution: Data curation (equal)

Search for more papers by this author

Yaya Wang,

Yaya Wang

College of Agroforestry and Medicine, The Open University of China, Beijing, China

Contribution: Data curation (equal)

Search for more papers by this author

Qiuhong Gong,

Corresponding Author

Qiuhong Gong

[email protected]

Endocrinology Centre, Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China

Correspondence:

Qiuhong Gong ([email protected])

Contribution: Conceptualization (supporting), Supervision (lead), Writing - review & editing (supporting)

Search for more papers by this author

Yan Wang,

Yan Wang

orcid.org/0000-0003-3070-9531

College of Agroforestry and Medicine, The Open University of China, Beijing, China

Contribution: Conceptualization (lead), Data curation (equal), Funding acquisition (lead), Visualization (equal), Writing - original draft (lead), Writing - review & editing (lead)

Search for more papers by this author

Xin Qian,

Xin Qian

Endocrinology Centre, Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China

Contribution: Data curation (equal), Visualization (equal), Writing - original draft (equal), Writing - review & editing (equal)

Search for more papers by this author

Yubo Wang,

Yubo Wang

Department of Pharmacy, Beijing Ditan Hospital Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

Contribution: Data curation (equal)

Search for more papers by this author

Caiyuan Yu,

Caiyuan Yu

College of Agroforestry and Medicine, The Open University of China, Beijing, China

State Key Laboratory of Quality Research in Chinese Medicines, Macau Institute for Applied Research in Medicine and Health, Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau, China

Contribution: Data curation (equal), Writing - review & editing (supporting)

Search for more papers by this author

Li Feng,

Li Feng

College of Agroforestry and Medicine, The Open University of China, Beijing, China

Contribution: Data curation (equal), Writing - review & editing (supporting)

Search for more papers by this author

Xiaoyan Zheng,

Xiaoyan Zheng

College of Agroforestry and Medicine, The Open University of China, Beijing, China

Contribution: Data curation (equal)

Search for more papers by this author

Yaya Wang,

Yaya Wang

College of Agroforestry and Medicine, The Open University of China, Beijing, China

Contribution: Data curation (equal)

Search for more papers by this author

Qiuhong Gong,

Corresponding Author

Qiuhong Gong

[email protected]

Endocrinology Centre, Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China

Correspondence:

Qiuhong Gong ([email protected])

Contribution: Conceptualization (supporting), Supervision (lead), Writing - review & editing (supporting)

Search for more papers by this author

First published: 30 December 2024

https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.70517

Citations: 2

Funding: This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82104255), Youth Foundation of the Open University of China (Q23A0015), and Natural Science Foundation of Beijing Municipality (7162134).

Yan Wang and Xin Qian contributed equally to this work.

Share a link

Email
Wechat
Bluesky

ABSTRACT

Background

TNF-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL) belongs to the tumor necrosis factor superfamily. TRAIL selectively induces apoptosis in tumor cells while sparing normal cells, which makes it an attractive candidate for cancer therapy. Recombinant soluble TRAIL and agonistic antibodies against TRAIL receptors have demonstrated safety and tolerability in clinical trials. However, they have failed to exhibit expected clinical efficacy. Consequently, extensive research has focused on optimizing TRAIL-based therapies, with one of the most common approaches being the construction of TRAIL fusion proteins.

Methods

An extensive literature search was conducted to identify studies published over the past three decades related to TRAIL fusion proteins. These various TRAIL fusion strategies were categorized based on their effects achieved.

Results

The main fusion strategies for TRAIL include: 1. Construction of stable TRAIL trimers; 2. Enhancing the polymerization capacity of soluble TRAIL; 3. Increasing the accumulation of TRAIL at tumor sites by fusing with antibody fragments or peptides; 4. Decorating immune cells with TRAIL; 5. Prolonging the half-life of TRAIL in vivo; 6. Sensitizing cancer cells to overcome resistance to TRAIL treatment.

Conclusion

This work focuses on the progress in recombinant TRAIL fusion proteins and aims to provide more rational and effective fusion strategies to enhance the efficacy of recombinant soluble TRAIL, facilitating its translation from bench to bedside as an effective anti-cancer therapeutic.

Abbreviations

ABD: albumin-binding domain
ADCC: antibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicity
Apaf-1: apoptotic protease activating factor 1
BAK: BCL-2 homologous antagonist killer
BAX: B-cell lymphoma 2-associated X
BCL-2: B-cell lymphoma 2
BID: BH3-interacting domain death agonist
c-FLIP: cellular FLICE-inhibitory protein
DcR1: decoy receptor 1
DcR2: decoy receptor 2
DISC: death-inducing signaling complex
DR4: death receptor 4
DR5: death receptor 5
EGFR: epidermal growth factor receptor
EHD2: heavy-chain domain 2
ELPs: elastin-like polypeptides
ERK: extracellular signal-regulated kinase
FADD: Fas-associated protein with death domain
FeSOD: iron superoxide dismutase
Fn14: fibroblast growth factor-inducible 14
HER2: human epidermal growth factor receptor 2
IAP: inhibitor of apoptosis
IgBDs: immunoglobulin-binding domains
IgE: immunoglobulin E
JNK: c-Jun N-terminal kinase
LUBAC: linear ubiquitin chain assembly complex
LZ: leucine zipper
MAPK: mitogen-activated protein kinase
NEMO: NF-κB essential modulator
NF-kB: nuclear factor kappa-light-chain-enhancer of activated B-cells
NK cells: natural killer cells
OPG: osteoprotegrin
PI3K: phosphatidylinositide 3-kinases
RIPK1: receptor-interacting serine/threonine protein kinase 1
RIPK3: receptor-interacting serine/threonine protein kinase 3
scFv: single-chain variable fragments
scTRAIL: single-chain trimeric TRAIL
SMAC: second mitochondria-derived activator of caspase
STAT3: signal transducer and activator of transcription 3
tBID: truncated BH3-interacting domain death agonist
TNC: tenascin-C
TNFRSF: tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily
TNFSF: tumor necrosis factor superfamily
TRAF2: TNF receptor-associated factor 2
TRAIL: tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand
TWEAK: tumor necrosis factor-like weak inducer of apoptosis
VEGFR2: vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2
XIAP: X-linked inhibitor of apoptosis protein

1 Introduction

Tumor necrosis factor-related apoptosis-inducing ligand (TRAIL), also known as Apo-2 ligand (Apo2L), belongs to the tumor necrosis factor superfamily (TNFSF) [1]. TRAIL has demonstrated the ability to induce apoptosis in cancer cells while causing little damage to normal cells, making it a promising candidate for cancer therapy. Since its discovery nearly three decades ago, recombinant soluble TRAIL (sTRAIL) and monoclonal antibodies targeting agonistic TRAIL receptors have been developed and evaluated in both preclinical and clinical studies. Although these drugs have shown good tolerability in patients during clinical trials, they have failed to elicit compelling objective responses either as monotherapy or in combination with other therapeutic agents [2].

Nevertheless, there is still considerable interest in developing TRAIL-based therapeutics as cancer-selective drugs by enhancing the pharmacokinetic and/or pharmacodynamic properties of TRAIL. One significant approach is the construction of genetically engineered fusion proteins that combine recombinant sTRAIL with other functional proteins or polypeptides. In recent years, many elegantly designed recombinant sTRAIL fusion proteins have been reported, with an increasingly wide range of fusion partners. Some of these have demonstrated superior anticancer activity, and several have entered clinical trials. This review focused on the progress in recombinant TRAIL fusion proteins, including updates on their clinical trials in order to provide more rational and effective fusion strategies to enhance the efficacy of recombinant sTRAIL and facilitate its development for cancer therapy.

2 TRAIL Signaling

As an immunocyte cytokine, TRAIL is expressed as a homotrimeric type II transmembrane protein on the surfaces of various immunocytes including natural killer (NK) cells [3], activated T cells, monocytes, dendritic cells, and macrophages. It plays a role in regulating immune surveillance [1]. The trimeric structure of TRAIL relies on the coordination of three Cys-230 residues from each monomer with one Zn²⁺ ion at its trimeric core, and the Zn²⁺ ion is also essential for maintaining stability and biological activity for the trimeric TRAIL [4]. Similar to other members of the TNFSF family, the extracellular domain of membrane-bound TRAIL can be cleaved from the cell membrane to generate sTRAIL, which is also a bioactive homotrimer. However, it has been demonstrated that membrane-bound TRAIL possesses much stronger cancer cell killing activity than the soluble version [5].

TRAIL interacts with five receptors: TRAIL-R1/death receptor (DR) 4, TRAIL-R2/DR5, TRAIL-R3/decoy receptor (DcR) 1, TRAIL-R4/DcR2, and osteoprotegrin (OPG) [6]. Both DR4 and DR5 serve as agonistic receptors, with their extracellular domain containing a preligand assembly domain (PLAD) that promotes the oligomerization of the DR4 and DR5 trimers to enhance binding with TRAIL [7]. The intracellular domains of DR4 and DR5 contain the full-length intracellular death domain (DD), a conserved motif crucial for cell death induction [8]. There are two decoy TRAIL receptors: DcR1 lacks a cytosolic region while DcR2 has a truncated, non-functional cytoplasmic DD. OPG is a soluble receptor without an intracellular domain. These three receptors cannot initiate cell death signaling, but they act as decoys competitively inhibiting the binding of TRAIL to DR4 and DR5 [9].

Ligation of TRAIL trimers to DR4 and DR5 initiates receptors trimerization, then leading to the formation of higher-order complexes [10]. The crosslinked receptors lead to cross-linking of their intracellular DDs. Then, their DDs recruit the intracellular adaptor Fas-associated protein with death domain (FADD), which further recruits initiator caspases: procaspase-8, and/or procaspase-10, to form the death-inducing signaling complex (DISC) [11]. Procaspase-8/10 within the DISC is then activated via proteolytic cleavage, and following activates downstream effector proteins caspase-3, -6, and -7. Activated effector caspases then cleave vital cellular proteins, ultimately causing apoptosis. This pathway is referred to as the “extrinsic apoptosis pathway” [12]. In some cells, TRAIL triggers the intrinsic apoptotic pathway by the caspase-8-mediated cleavage of BH3-interacting domain death agonist (BID) to generate truncated BH3-interacting domain death agonist (tBID). tBID subsequently binds and activates the proapoptotic proteins B-cell lymphoma 2 (BCL-2)-associated X (BAX) and BCL-2 homologous antagonist killer (BAK), resulting in mitochondrial outer membrane permeabilization, and the subsequent release of cytochrome c and the second mitochondria-derived activator of caspase (SMAC) into the cytoplasm [13]. Cytochrome c then complexes with apoptotic protease activating factor 1 (Apaf-1) and procaspase-9 to form the apoptosome, which activates caspase-9 followed by the hydrolysis of caspase-3, -6, and -7, ultimately resulting in cellular apoptosis [14] (Figure 1). The extent to which DR4 and DR5 induce apoptosis in cancer cells via extrinsic or intrinsic pathways remains incompletely characterized and appears to differ depending on the cell type.

Details are in the caption following the image — **FIGURE 1**
Open in figure viewer PowerPoint

The apoptotic and non-apoptotic pathways of TRAIL.

In addition to its role in apoptosis induction, TRAIL binding with DR4 and DR5 may also elicit noncanonical signaling pathways. Under certain conditions, such as caspase-8 deficiency or inactivation [15], receptor-interacting serine/threonine protein kinase 1 (RIPK1) is recruited to the TRAIL DRs, which then recruits and phosphorylates RIPK3, leading to the formation of the necrosome and the induction of necroptosis [16] (Figure 1).

TRAIL can also trigger inflammatory and cell survival pathways, although the signaling mechanisms are not fully understood. Ligation of TRAIL receptors leads to the formation of DISC (complex I), which presumably dissociates from the receptors and assembles into a secondary cytoplasmic complex known as the FADDosome (complex II) [17, 18]. The FADDosome consists of caspase-8, FADD, and RIPK1, along with cellular FLICE-inhibitory protein (c-FLIP) [17], caspase-10, TNF receptor-associated factor 2 (TRAF2), inhibitors of apoptosis (IAPs), NF-κB essential modulator (NEMO) [19], the linear ubiquitin chain assembly complex (LUBAC) [20], and other regulatory molecules. This complex then leads to inflammation or cell survival via pathways such as nuclear factor κB (NF-κB), mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) including p38, phosphoinositide 3-kinases/protein kinase B (PI3K/Akt), extracellular signal-regulated kinase (ERK), c-Jun N-terminal kinase (JNK), and signal transducer and activator of transcription 3 (STAT3) [21] (Figure 1). Furthermore, emerging evidence suggests that DcR2 may induce noncanonical TRAIL signaling through its truncated intracellular domain [22].

3 Dilemma of TRAIL Research

Given TRAIL's ability to selectively induce apoptosis in tumor cells, recombinant human TRAIL and TRAIL-receptor agonistic antibodies have been developed as anticancer therapeutics. These agents, classified as first-generation TRAIL receptor agonists (TRAs), have demonstrated promising preclinical antitumor activity by inducing apoptosis in various tumor cell types [23]. Clinical trials have shown that these agents are well tolerated by patients, even at high doses. However, they seem to elicit a limited therapeutic efficacy.

Agonistic antibody to DR4, such as Mapatumumab [24-28], and agonistic antibody to DR5, including Conatumumab [29, 30], Tigatuzumab [31-33], Drozitumab [34], Lexatumumab [35, 36], and LBY135 [37], have been evaluated in Phase 1 and/or 2 clinical trials as monotherapy or in combination for the treatment of various cancers. These antibodies demonstrated acceptable safety and tolerability, but their efficacy was generally underwhelming, with only negligible benefits, if any, reported.

Dulanermin, the first recombinant soluble human TRAIL (aa114-281) [38], has completed clinical trials from Phase 1 to Phase 3 in patients of non-small cell lung cancer [39-41], B-cell lymphomas [42], colorectal cancer [43], or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma [44], either as monotherapy or in combination with other anticancer therapies. These trials demonstrated that dulanermin was safe and well tolerated. However, the clinical efficacy was rather limited [2, 45]. Combining TRAIL with paclitaxel, carboplatin (PC), and bevacizumab (PCB) did not improve the patients' clinical outcomes [40] or elicit rather limited therapeutic efficacy [41]. Another recombinant TRAIL variant, circularly permuted TRAIL (CPT, Aponermin), has entered Phase 1, 2, and 3 studies [46-49]. CPT in combination with thalidomide and dexamethasone was well tolerated and showed significant improvements in progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and overall response rate (ORR) in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma in the Phase 3 trial. However, the investigators found that this benefit was still limited compared to that of other new drugs [49].

The challenges encountered by TRAIL and TRAs in transitioning from bench to bedside are primarily attributed to three main factors: pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and resistance. Recombinant sTRAIL has a short serum half-life (0.56–1.02 h in Phase 1 trials in patients [38]), which leads to rapid systemic clearance via renal excretion [50]. Consequently, repeated administration is necessary for maintaining therapeutic levels in circulation. Furthermore, membrane-bound TRAIL is more potent (100- to 1000-fold) as an inducer of cell death compared to sTRAIL due to its ability to oligomerize or cluster DR4 and DR5, facilitating more efficient downstream signal transduction [51, 52]. In contrast, recombinant sTRAIL or agonistic TRAIL receptor antibodies struggle to anchor to cell membranes, resulting in inefficient clustering of TRAIL receptors and lower effective apoptotic signal transduction than membrane-bound TRAIL [51]. Additionally, many tumor cells exhibit inherent or acquired resistance toward TRAIL or agonistic TRAIL receptor antibodies through various mechanisms.

Therefore, to enhance the clinical efficacy of TRAIL, efforts should be focused on these three areas.

4 Construction of Recombinant TRAIL Fusion Proteins

To address the limitations of TRAIL-based therapy, numerous strategies have been investigated to enhance the antitumor efficacy of TRAIL, including the engineering of TRAIL fusion proteins, combination with chemotherapeutic drugs, developing TRAIL sensitizers, TRAIL gene therapy, and targeted delivery of TRAIL by nanocarriers or host cells (reviewed in [2]). Among these strategies, the construction of recombinant TRAIL fusion proteins stands out as an efficacious and fundamental approach, which is to fuse the DNA of sTRAIL with DNA encoding one or more functional peptides/proteins with genetic engineering methods. Then the resulting recombinant construct is transformed into prokaryotic cells (e.g., Escherichia coli) or eukaryotic cells (e.g., CHO cells) to express the fusion proteins.

4.1 Construction of Stable TRAIL Trimers

As mentioned above, the structure of homotrimer is prerequisite for the biological activity of TRAIL. However, recombinant soluble trimeric TRAIL is prone to instability, leading to dissociation into monomers and subsequent formation of disulfide-linked dimers, which exhibit significantly reduced apoptotic activity compared to trimers [53]. Therefore, the primary focus in the development of TRAIL fusions is on achieving stable trimer formation. Covalently linking three soluble recombinant TRAIL monomers into a single polypeptide promotes trimerization, resulting in improved stability and cytotoxicity comparable to native TRAIL. This fused single-chain trimeric TRAIL (scTRAIL) often serves as a tool or module for constructing more intricate TRAIL fusion proteins [54].

Another effective method to obtain trimeric TRAIL is to fuse TRAIL with domains capable of spontaneous trimerization, such as leucine zipper (LZ) [55], tenascin-C (TNC) [56], the C-terminal fiber shaft repeat of human adenovirus type 5 (Ad5) fiber protein [57], the triple helix domain of human collagen XVIII [58], the c-propeptide of α1(I) collagen [59], and the trimer coiled helix domain of human lung surfactant-associated protein D [60]. Overall, trimeric TRAIL fusion proteins exhibit activity similar to or slightly better than that of native TRAIL in in vitro assays of tumor cell activity. However, the trimeric form of the fusion proteins is more stable and binds zinc ions more tightly [59], resulting in stronger antitumor activity in vivo. The increased molecular weight of fusion TRAILs also results in an extended half-life.

Among these trimeric fused TRAIL variants, SCB-313, which is a fusion of TRAIL with the c-propeptide of α1(I) collagen, has already completed Phase 1 clinical trials in China and Australia (NCT04051112, NCT04123886, NCT03443674, and NCT03869697) for the treatment of malignant peritoneal tumors and malignant pleural effusion. Results from NCT04051112 and NCT03443674 have demonstrated that SCB-313 exhibits acceptable safety profiles and a reduction in ascites flow rate at therapeutic doses [61]. However, there have been no reports of Phase 2 clinical trials of SCB-313 to date.

4.2 Promoting the Formation of TRAIL Polymers

Similar to other members of the tumor necrosis factor receptor superfamily (TNFRSF) [10, 62], forming higher order assemblies of DR4 or DR5 based on the trimeric structure has been shown to more effectively activate the receptors and induce significantly amplified apoptosis. This is supported by observations that secondary cross-linking of FLAG-tagged TRAIL, achieved through the addition of anti-FLAG antibodies, exhibits markedly enhanced tumor cell apoptosis compared to native TRAIL [63, 64]. Consequently, it is plausible that the insufficient cross-linking of sTRAIL may be a contributing factor to its limited antitumor efficacy in clinical trials.

Therefore, constructing polymeric TRAIL becomes an attractive option for enhancing therapeutic efficacy of TRAIL to promote higher order oligomerization of TRAIL receptors (Table 1). The fusion of TRAIL with a hexametric domain of the isoleucine zipper motif, known as ILz(6):TRAIL, has been observed to form hexamers and higher order polymers, resulting in enhanced apoptosis-inducing activity compared to the trimeric form of TRAIL [65]. Immunoglobulins are natural covalently linked homodimer that can serve as scaffolds for the construction of polymeric TRAIL. For instance, fusion of the heavy-chain domain 2 (EHD2) of immunoglobulin E (IgE) with scTRAIL resulted in a hexavalent TRAIL with enhanced antitumor activity [67]. Similarly, fusion of scTRAIL to either the light chain, heavy chain, or both chains of an anti-EGFR IgG antibody produced hexavalent or dodecavalent IgG-scTRAIL molecules, all of which exhibited increased bioactivity. Notably, dodecavalent scTRAIL demonstrated superior bioactivity compared to the hexavalent IgG-scTRAIL [68]. Moreover, fusion of the Fc-part of a human IgG1-mutein with two scTRAIL-receptor-binding domain polypeptides also created a hexavalent scTRAIL-RBD dimer known as APG350 [77] (with an optimized version named ABBV-621 [69]), with increased antitumor activity in vitro and in vivo. Encouragingly, ABBV-621 has advanced to clinical trials. A completed Phase 1 trial (NCT03082209) evaluated its safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic profile in patients with previously treated solid tumors or hematologic malignancies. This study demonstrated the acceptable safety and preliminary antitumor effects of ABBV-621 [78]. Another Phase 1b clinical trial (NCT04570631) is ongoing in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma that aimed to determine the efficacy of ABBV-621 in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone [79].

TABLE 1. Polymeric TRAIL fusion proteins.

Fusion partner	Name	Polymeric state	Reference
Isoleucine zipper motif	ILz(6):TRAIL	Hexamers and higher order polymers	[65]
α-Helical coils from MBD2 and p66α proteins	HexTR	Hexamer	[66]
Heavy-chain domain 2 of IgE	scFv-EHD2-scTRAIL	Hexamer	[67]
Light chain of anti-EGFR IgG	LC-scTRAIL	Hexamer	[68]
Heavy chain of anti-EGFR IgG	HC-scTRAIL	Hexamer	[68]
Light and heavy chains of anti-EGFR IgG	LC/HC-scTRAIL	Dodecamer	[68]
Fc-part of a human IgG1-mutein	APG350 or ABBV-621	Hexamer	[69]
Multivalent protein scaffold (MV) by adding tailpiece of IgM to IgG Fc	MV-TRAIL	Polymers	[70]
TGF3L peptide	TGF3L-TRAIL	Polymers	[71]
NCTR₂₅ peptide	NCTR₂₅-TRAIL	Polymers	[72]
NCTR₂₅-TGF3L	NCTR₂₅-TGF3L-TRAIL	Polymers	[72]
Elastin-like polypeptides	RGD-TRAIL-ELP	Nanoparticles	[73]
Ferritin	TRAIL-ATNC^IL4rP	Active trimer nanocage	[74]
SnoopTagJr/SnoopDogTag	SnHexaTR	Trimer or hexamer when adding SnoopLigase	[75]
Fn14	Fn14.TRAIL	Adding TWEAK to form oligomer	[76]

In addition to forming oligomers, some TRAIL fusion proteins can form high-order assemblies, even reaching nanoscale. Elastin-like polypeptides (ELPs) are temperature-sensitive biopolymers derived from human tropoelastin. When fused with TRAIL, the resulting fusion protein can spontaneously assemble into nanoparticles at 37°C with improved apoptosis-inducing bioactivity [73]. Additionally, TRAIL fused with the triple helical domain of pulmonary surfactant-associated protein D and ferritin, known for its ability to form a cage-like supramolecular assembly, produced TRAIL-ATNC, which formed nanoparticles with prolonged serum half-life and enhanced tumor targeting [74]. We have reported a series of self-assembled stable TRAIL polymers, including TGF3L-TRAIL [71], NCTR₂₅-TRAIL, and NCTR₂₅-TGF3L-TRAIL [72], and their hydrodynamic radius measured by DLS was 30–40 nm on average. These polymers demonstrated significantly enhanced tumor cell-specific cytotoxicity in vitro, with an LD₅₀ four orders of magnitude lower than sTRAIL in Colo205 cells, and also showed improved in vivo activity compared to recombinant sTRAIL.

Additionally, the polymerization of TRAIL can be achieved by adding enzymes or ligand. The fusion of TRAIL with minimal superglue peptide pairs, such as Snoopligase-catalyzed SnoopTagJr/SnoopDogTag and SpyStapler-catalyzed SpyTag/SpyBDTag, resulted in superglue-fusion TRAIL variants capable of spontaneous trimerization. Upon introduction of Snoopligase or SpyStapler, the trimeric superglue-fusion TRAIL variants were predominantly crosslinked into hexavalent TRAIL variants, named snHexaTR or spHexaTR [75, 80]. Furthermore, distinct from previously reported fusion proteins, the fusion of TRAIL to fibroblast growth factor-inducible 14 (Fn14)—a receptor for tumor necrosis factor-like weak inducer of apoptosis (TWEAK)—is capable of forming trimers. And this fusion protein and undergoes oligomerization in the presence of TWEAK, resulting in increased activity [76].

In addition to enhanced activity, many polymeric TRAIL fusion proteins have shown increased drug accumulation. For example, hexavalent SnHexaTR demonstrated enhanced tumor uptake (over 2 times) than that of trivalent TRAIL [75]; a TRAIL-active trimer nanocage (TRAIL-ATNC) showed approximately 1.5 times higher tumor uptake than that of TRAIL [74]. The self-assembly nanoparticle RGD-TRAIL-ELP exhibited 2.5-fold higher tumor accumulation than that of RGD-TRAIL [73].

4.3 Enhancing the Tumor Targeting of TRAIL

As mentioned above, TRAIL has five corresponding receptors. TRAIL triggers cell apoptosis in cancerous cells due to its ligation to agonistic receptors DR4 and DR5, while sparing normal cells due to the competitively inhibition of DcR1 and DcR2 on normal cells [9]. Nevertheless, the systemic administration of TRAIL was trapped by its sequestration by normal cells that overexpress DcRs, leading to limited uptake by tumor cells. Tumor cells can resist to TRAIL through downregulation or increased internalization of DR4 and DR5, or overexpression of DcRs (DcR1 and DcR2) [81]. In addition, some normal cells, such as hepatocytes, can express DR4 and DR5 [82], leading to concerns about TRAIL-induced hepatotoxicity. Therefore, enhancing the targeting of TRAIL to tumor sites is essential when optimizing TRAIL.

Molecules overexpressed on the surface of tumor cells provide opportunities for the design of targeted TRAIL fusion proteins. For instance, peptides that target the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) [83-85] or human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) [85, 86] are frequently used in the design of TRAIL fusion proteins. Additionally, the tumor microenvironment is characterized by vigorous neovascularization, which is vital for tumor proliferation, metastasis, and drug resistance. Targeting neovascularization is therefore another effective cancer treatment strategy [87]. Fusion with targeted fragments gives TRAIL the potential to selectively accumulate in tumor tissues, thereby improving therapeutic outcomes and minimizing harm to normal tissues.

4.3.1 Antibody/Antibody Fragment Fusion With TRAIL

Antibodies are a crucial class of targeted cancer therapeutics known for their high specificity and affinity, long half-life, and the ability to block receptor–ligand interactions. They also mediate complement-dependent cytotoxicity (CDC), antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC), and antibody-dependent cellular phagocytosis (ADCP) [88]. Therefore, in addition to serving as targeted therapeutics themselves, antibodies have also been reported to be fused with TRAIL to enhance its targeting and efficacy [68, 89, 90] (Table 2).

TABLE 2. TRAIL fusions with antibody/antibody fragments.

Fusion partner	Name	Target	Effect	Reference
Complete antibodies
CD19 IgG1	CD19-TRAIL	CD19	Efficiently kills CD19⁺ tumor cells	[89]
Anti-EGFR huC225 IgG1	LC-scTRAIL, HC-scTRAIL, LC/HC-scTRAIL	EGFR	Efficiently induces EGFR⁺ cell death	[68]
Anti-MCSP	TRAIL	MCSP	Potently inhibits outgrowth of melanoma	[90]
Antibody fragments
EGFR targeted nanobody	ENb-TRAIL	EGFR	Induces apoptosis in cancer cells insensitive to TRAIL	[83]
Diabody of anti-EGFR	Db-scTRAIL	EGFR	Shows potent and long-lasting tumor response	[84]
scFvhu225	scFvhu225-Fc-scTRAIL	EGFR	Almost complete tumor remission but early regrowth	[85]
4D5 scFv of anti-HER2	4D5 scFv-TRAIL	HER2	Specifically targets to the surface of HER2-overexpressing tumor cells and inhibits cell growth	[86]
scFv3-43	scFv3-43-Fc-scTRAIL	HER3	Stable tumor remission	[85]
scFv323/A3hu3	scFv323/A3hu3-Fc-scTRAIL	EpCAM	Partial tumor regression and fast regrowth	[85]
Anti-Kv10.1 nanobody	VHH-D9-scTRAIL	Kv10.1	Induces apoptosis in Kv10.1⁺ tumor cells	[91]
scFv:G28-5	scFv:G28-TRAIL	CD40	Enhances apoptosis induction and stimulates DC maturation	[92]
scFv:lαhCD70	scFv:lahCD70-TNC-TRAIL	CD70	Triggers cell death 10- to 100-fold more efficiently in CD70 positive cells	[93]
scFvCD33	scFvCD33:sTRAIL	CD33	Induces CD33-targeted apoptosis and shows bystander activity toward CD33⁻ tumor cells	[94]
Anti-CD38 scFv Diabody	IL2-αCD38-αCD38-scTRAIL	CD38, IL-2R	Selectively kills CD138⁺ cells	[95]
scFvCD20	scFvCD20-sTRAIL	CD20	scFvCD20-sTRAIL secreting mesenchymal stem cells migrates to the tumor site and significantly inhibits the tumor growth	[96]
scFvCD7	scFvCD7:sTRAIL	CD7	Induces potent apoptosis in CD7⁺ malignant T cells and induces bystander apoptosis of CD7⁻ tumor cells	[97]
scFvCD47	Anti-CD47:TRAIL	CD47	Enhances RTX-induced B-NHL cell phagocytosis by granulocytes	[98]
scFvPD-L1	Anti-PD-L1:TRAIL	PD-L1	Blocks PD-1/PD-L1 interaction, enhances T cell activation, and sensitizes cancer cells to TRAIL	[99]
scFvM58	scFvM58-sTRAIL	MRP-3	Induces apoptosis toward MRP3⁺ GBM cells	[100]

However, the large molecular weight of full-length antibodies makes it challenging for constructing fusion proteins. The single-chain variable fragments (scFvs) of antibodies (26–28 kDa) are more popular in the construction of fusion proteins. ScFvs incorporate the complete antigen-binding site of an antibody by combining the V_H (variable domain of immunoglobulin heavy chain) and V_L (variable domain of immunoglobulin light chain) connected with a flexible peptide linker [101], making it a more compact size and comparable antigen-binding specificity and high affinity to complete antibodies. In recent years, there have been numerous TRAIL fusion proteins constructed using scFvs (Table 2). Alongside scFvs, the diabody (a variant of scFv by reducing the linker between V_H and V_L) has also been employed to construct dimerized targeted TRAIL [84]. Furthermore, nanobodies, another smaller antibody fragments with the V_H from camelids antibodies, are also utilized as fusion partners for TRAIL [83, 91].

The fusion of antibodies or antibody fragments with TRAIL led to multifunctional TRAIL fusion proteins, which exhibit enhanced tumor selectivity and reduced off-target effects. Furthermore, certain antibodies could inhibit cell prosurvival signaling [83, 99] or stimulate dendritic cells maturation [92], thereby synergistically enhancing the antitumor efficacy with TRAIL. Moreover, the high affinity of antibodies allows for temporary anchoring of TRAIL to the cell membrane, mimicking membrane-bound TRAIL and augmenting its activity. Additionally, the scFv-TRAIL fusion protein demonstrates a so-called “bystander effect” by eliminating tumor cells without the specific antigen in close proximity to target cells through a paracrine-like mechanism [92, 94, 97]. Table 2 presents a summary of TRAIL fusions with their targets and fused antibody/antibody fragments in recent studies.

4.3.2 Peptides Fusion With TRAIL

In addition to antibodies, small peptides/ligands that recognize tumor-associated antigens/receptors have been utilized as fusion partners for TRAIL to enhance the tumor-homing capabilities of TRAIL and inhibit tumor growth through alternative molecular pathways. “Z-domain” or “affibody” is a small recognition molecule derived from domain B of staphylococcal protein A [102], which shows excellent tumor penetration and precisely targets some cancer cells with specific overexpressed molecular signatures [103]. For instance, the fusion of PDGFRβ-specific affibody Z_PDGFRβ with ABD-TRAIL has been demonstrated to effectively target tumor cells and PDGFRβ-positive pericytes on tumor microvessels, facilitating the homing of TRAIL to the tumor site [104]. Similarly, the antiangiogenic synthetic peptide SRHTKQRHTALH has been shown to confer the TRAIL variant with the ability to target vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 (VEGFR2) [105]. Peptides from RGD and NGR families have also been extensively exploited to enhance the penetration of various compounds by binding to integrins αVβ3 and αVβ5 [106], which are highly expressed in both tumor cells and the tumor vasculature. Table 3 displays the peptides that have been fused with TRAIL in recent studies.

TABLE 3. TRAIL fusions with targeting small peptides.

Fusion partner	Name	Target	Effect	Reference
IL-2	IL2-TRAIL	IL2 receptor	Induces higher apoptosis in CD25⁺ cells	[107]
IL4 receptor-binding peptides (IL4rPs)	TRAIL-ATNC^IL4rP nanocages	IL4 receptor	Enhanced in vivo stability and antitumor efficacy	[74]
MUC16-binding domain of mesothelin	Meso64-TR3	MUC16	More potent than TR3 in vitro and in vivo in MUC16⁺ ovarian cancer	[108]
CD19L	CD19L-TRAIL	CD19	Potent in vivo antileukemic activity at nontoxic fmol/kg dose levels and slower in vivo elimination than TRAIL	[109]
HER2-specific affibody Z_HER2:342	TRAIL- Affibody	HER2	Increased tumor-homing ability and antitumor efficiency than those of TRAIL	[110]
PDGFRβ-specific affibody Z_PDGFRβ	Z-ABD-TRAIL	PDGFRβ	Engagement of PDGFRβ-expressing pericytes on tumor microvessels and long-lasting (> 72 h) tumor-killing ability	[104]
RGR peptide (CRGRRST)	RGR-TRAIL	Not clear	Improved the tumor uptake and antitumor effects of TRAIL in DR-overexpressing colorectal cancer cells	[111]
NGR and (or) RGD	RGD-TRAIL, TRAIL-NGR, RGD-TRAIL-NGR	Integrin ανβ3	Induces more potent apoptosis in cells insensitive to TRAIL	[106]
iRGD (CRGDKGPDC)	DR5-B-iRGD	Integrin αvβ3	Penetrates U-87 tumor spheroids much faster with enhanced antitumor effect than DR5-B	[112]
Antiangiogenic synthetic peptide SRHTKQRHTALH	SRH-DR5-B	VEGFR2	Shows higher efficacy than DR5-B in 3D tumor spheroids of the HT-29 and U-87 cell lines	[105]
RKRKKSR peptides derived from VEGFA	AD-O51.4	VEGF receptors	Triggers apoptosis in TRAIL-resistant cancer cells	[113, 114]
Vasostatin	VAS-TRAIL	Not given	Induces apoptosis in endothelial cells	[115]

4.4 Arming Immune Cells With TRAIL

TRAIL, expressed on the surface of various innate and adaptive immune cells [116-120], plays a pivotal role in tumor immune surveillance [6]. It collaborates with FasL and perforin to exert cytotoxic effects against tumor cells [3]. However, the substantial expression of TRAIL on immune cells typically requires stimuli, such as interferons [116-119] or interleukins [120], which limit the apoptotic potential of endogenous TRAIL against tumor cells. Moreover, immune cells express both the membrane-bound and soluble forms of TRAIL, yet studies have demonstrated that the membrane-bound TRAIL exhibits higher cytotoxic activity than its soluble counterpart [51, 52]. Consequently, immobilizing recombinant sTRAIL on the membrane of immune cells is an effective strategy to enhance the antitumor efficacy of both the immune cells and the recombinant soluble TRAIL.

T cells are pivotal in the immune response against tumors, characterized by high expression levels of CD3 and CD7. However, resting T cells expressed relatively lower levels of TRAIL. Fusion of TRAIL with anti-CD7 or anti-CD3 antibodies facilitates its binding to the resting T cell surface, thereby converting TRAIL into a mimic membrane-bound form [121]. Especially for anti-CD3-TRAIL, the anti-CD3 component can simultaneously activate resting T cells, endowing them with intrinsic cytotoxic effector activity of T cells and leading to granzyme/perforin-mediated tumor cell lysis. Consequently, anti-CD3-TRAIL concurrently enhances the tumor-killing capabilities of resting T cells and TRAIL [121]. Similarly, neutrophils, which are more abundant than T cells in the circulatory system, also can be equipped with TRAIL. The fusion of anti-CLL1 with TRAIL is proposed to facilitate the anchoring of TRAIL to the neutrophil surface, thereby enhancing its cytotoxicity against tumor cells and simultaneously increasing the ADCC effect of antibody drugs [122].

Although these fusion proteins are also the fusion of antibodies and TRAIL, they differ from the previously described TRAIL fusion proteins designed to enhance targeting tumor tissues. The activity of these fusion proteins is significantly enhanced only when they are co-incubated with T cells or granulocytes.

4.5 Prolonging Half-Life of TRAIL

The serum half-life of recombinant sTRAIL is short (3–5 min in rodents, 23–31 min in nonhuman primates [123], and 0.56–1.02 h in Phase 1 trials in patients [38]), which impedes its clinical application.

The human serum albumin (HSA) and the albumin-binding domain (ABD) are commonly utilized fusion partners to prolong the plasma half-life of TRAIL and enhance its bioavailability, because the HSA has an exceptionally long half-life of ~19 days [124]. The fusion of FLAG-TNC-TRAIL with HSA has proven to be an effective approach, as the half-life of this fusion TRAIL in mice is increased to ~15 h, resulting in enhanced antitumor activity in vivo [125]. Linking HSA with TRAIL via a bifunctional PEG derivative can also improve the pharmacokinetic profiles of TRAIL, resulting in a 27-fold increase in half-life in mice [126]. Additionally, genetically fusing TRAIL with the ABD, a small domain that binds to albumin, has been found to significantly prolong the plasma half-life of TRAIL by 40–50 times, leading to enhanced antitumor effects [127].

IgG molecules, particularly IgG1, IgG2, and IgG4, have exceptionally long half-lives up to ∼18–21 days [128]. The extended half-life of IgG is attributed to its recycling process involving Fc region binding to FcRn [124]. Thus, fusion to an Fcγ region provides therapeutic proteins with the long half-life properties of immunoglobulins [129]. For instance, fusion of the Fcγ region of IgG1 to TRAIL significantly extends its half-life by more than 10-fold and enhances its antitumor efficacy in vivo by approximately 5-fold. Additionally, the Fc region confers oligomeric ability to TRAIL [130]. Furthermore, the fusion of immunoglobulin-binding domains (IgBDs) to TRAIL allows for binding to Fab fragments of IgG. IgBD-TRAIL exhibits a significantly longer serum half-life compared to TRAIL, with an increase of 50–60-fold, as well as a four- to seven-fold increase in tumor uptake and more than 10 times greater in vivo antitumor effect compared to TRAIL [131].

4.6 Overcoming Resistance of Tumor Cells to TRAIL

Cancer cells have developed diverse mechanisms to resist apoptosis triggered by TRAIL [132]. Dysregulation of TRAIL receptors, such as decreased expression of DR4 and DR5 [133], increased internalization of DR4 and DR5 [134], and overexpression of DcR1, DcR2, or OPG were observed to correlate with TRAIL resistance [9]. Upregulation of antiapoptotic proteins also plays a vital role in TRAIL resistance. Upregulation of c-FLIP is one of the main mechanisms for cancer cells escaping from TRAIL-induced apoptosis [135]. c-FLIP can bind to FADD but is unable to activate caspases and thus prevents effective DISC formation [81] (Figure 1). In intrinsic apoptosis pathway, antiapoptotic proteins of the BCL-2 family, specifically BCL-XL, can compete with BAX for binding to tBID, whereas BCL-2 can inhibit tBID translocating into the mitochondrial outer membrane (Figure 1). Overexpression of BCL-XL or BCL-2 is associated with tumor cells' resistance to TRAIL [136]. IAP family proteins regulate both the extrinsic and intrinsic pathways (Figure 1). XIAP has been shown to interact with caspases 3, 7, and 9 and inhibits their activities, whereas cellular inhibitor of apoptosis protein (cIAP)1 and cIAP2 polyubiquitinates caspases 3 and 7, leading to their degradation. XIAP, cIAP1, and cIAP2 are frequently overexpressed in a number of cancers and revolved in cell death resistance [137].

It was found that decreased levels of phosphorylated Akt (p-Akt) led to reduced expression of c-FLIP, thereby alleviating TRAIL resistance in cancer cells. Iron superoxide dismutase (FeSOD) was shown to decrease p-Akt levels. Consequently, the fusion protein sTRAIL:FeSOD resulted in the downregulation of both p-Akt and c-FLIP, thereby promoting apoptosis in TRAIL-resistant cells [138]. AD-O57.4 and AD-O57.5 are fusion proteins composed of TRAIL and the BH3 domain of BID connected by distinct linkers. Both constructs have demonstrated the ability to induce apoptosis in cell lines that were initially resistant to TRAIL [139]. The IAPs impede the activation of downstream caspases, and the mitochondrial protein SMAC/Diablo can eliminate the inhibitory effects of XIAP on caspase activation [140]. A fusion protein, AD-O53.2, was designed to combine sTRAIL with a peptide derived from SMAC/Diablo protein (AVPIAQKP) in order to facilitate the delivery of the SMAC/Diablo peptide to the cytoplasm for the purpose of inhibiting XIAP and overcoming TRAIL resistance [141]. Similarly, in another study, the 10 aa in the N-terminal of the sTRAIL was replaced with RRRRRR (a cell penetrating peptide polyarginine) and AVPI (the N-terminal and binding site of SMAC). The resulted protein, named R6ST, exhibited improved affinity to DR4 and DR5, and significantly decreased XIAP intracellular concentration in PANC-1 cells compared with sTRAIL [142]. The fusion protein AD-O56.9 also demonstrated significant tumor regression in mouse xenograft models of TRAIL-resistant tumors. It consists of sTRAILand the cationic, alpha-helical (KLAKLAK) 2 antimicrobial peptide, which is known for its potent ability to induce apoptosis by disrupting the mitochondrial membrane [143]. Another fusion protein SAC-TRAIL consists of TRAIL and SAC protein. SAC is the core domain (aa137–195) as well as the effector domain of prostate apoptosis response-4, which was identified as essential for TRAIL-induced apoptosis [144]. The two functional components of SAC-TRAIL demonstrated synergistic effects, resulting in enhanced antitumor efficacy compared to TRAIL alone [145].

4.7 Other TRAILFusions

There are also constructs of TRAIL fusions that demonstrated higher antitumor efficacy than native TRAIL without accurate mechanism, for example, the antibacterial peptide CM4 fused with TRAIL induced more potent apoptosis than that of TRAIL [146]. Another chimeric protein Annexin V-TRAIL triggered robust apoptosis in A549 cells and demonstrated significant inhibition of tumor growth in A549 xenografts, which is resistant to TRAIL [147]. Additionally, TRAIL-Mu3, a mutant form of wild-type TRAIL, is not a typical TRAIL fusion protein. The 114–121 amino acid sequence “VRERGPQR” of TRAIL was mutated into a membrane-penetrating peptide-like amino acid sequence “RRRRRRRR.” This modification resulted in increased affinity for the cell membrane and enhanced proapoptotic potential [148].

5 Conclusion and Perspective

TRAIL is an endogenous apoptosis-inducing ligand that specifically kills cancer cells with little harm to normal cells, which makes it a promising molecule for cancer treatment. However, clinical trials of sTRAIL showed limited efficacy, due to its relatively short half-life, decreased protein stability, insufficient tumor accumulation, and resistance exhibited by cancer cells. An increasing number of TRAIL fusion proteins have been constructed over the past few years, and potent approaches have been successfully employed to create multifunctional TRAIL. Notably, some of them have shown sufficient promise to advance into clinical trials [78, 79, 149, 150]. Nevertheless, significant challenges remain in TRAIL fusion protein development.

Hepatotoxicity has been a major limitation for the clinical use of TNF superfamily members [151]. Certain versions of tagged TRAIL, such as His-TRAIL [152], FLAG-TRAIL, or LZ TRAIL [153], have been reported to induce apoptosis in human hepatocytes. This hepatotoxicity has been attributed to the self-aggregation of tagged TRAIL due to the lack of Zn²⁺ ions and reduced solubility [152], or to the artificial receptor cross-linking by the addition of FLAG antibody [153], which induces a stronger signal through the DRs in hepatocytes. Consistent with these observations, in our previous study [72], we observed fatal hepatotoxicity in BALB/c nude mice administered a high dose (40 mg/kg) of His-TRAIL. In addition, in a nonclinical toxicology study, recombinant human TRAIL (without any tag) also demonstrated hepatotoxicity in cynomolgus monkeys. Researchers determined that cross-species antitherapeutic antibodies in cynomolgus monkeys crosslinked recombinant human TRAIL, inducing the aggregation of hepatocyte DRs and amplifying downstream signaling leading to apoptosis [154]. Similarly, in a Phase 1 study of TAS266, a tetravalent agonistic nanobody targeting the DR5 receptor, three patients developed TAS266-related hepatotoxicity. The possible cause is suspected to be related to the multivalence of the molecule, which efficiently enhances DR5 clustering [155].

Therefore, minimizing hepatoxicity is crucial in the TRAIL fusion protein design, particularly ensuring that potency and valency enhancement should not be pursued at the expense of safety. One approach to attenuate hepatotoxicity is to enhance the tumor-targeting specificity of TRAIL fusion proteins, as detailed in the text. Alternatively, optimized delivery systems can be employed. For example, therapeutic engineered neural stem cells were developed to be implanted in the resection cavity of glioblastoma in mice, offering a continuous and concentrated local delivery of sTRAIL, thus reducing its nonselective targeting [156]. In summary, it is advisable to concurrently evaluate the hepatotoxicity of TRAIL fusion proteins alongside their antitumor activity.

Notably, the existence of resistance of tumor cells against TRAIL fusion proteins should be considered during the design and development of TRAIL fusion proteins. Combination with other drugs is a common strategy to overcome resistance. For example, the combination of cyclopamine and CPT exhibited synergistic effects on inhibition, proliferation, and inducing apoptosis in myeloma cells [157]. For ABBV-621, researchers have demonstrated that the inherent resistance of cancer cells to ABBV-621 treatment can be overcome in combination with chemotherapeutics or with selective inhibitors of BCL-XL, A-1331852 [69]. Furthermore, an ongoing Phase 1b clinical trial (NCT04570631) is evaluating the efficacy of ABBV-621 in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma [79]. It is also necessary to identify appropriate biomarkers for patients to determine their suitability for TRAIL treatment and to select the most effective sensitizers for TRAIL fusion proteins to achieve better therapeutic efficacy. In addition to combination with TRAL sensitizers, meticulously designed delivery systems can also enhance tumor cell sensitivity to TRAIL. For example, a nanocage was designed to deliver TRAIL in its native-like trimeric structure, along with doxorubicin, which re-sensitizes TRAIL-resistant tumor cells [158]. Another nanoplatform, named CPT MV, is a novel reactive oxygen species (ROS)-dependent TRAIL-sensitizing nanoplatform, featuring a Ce6-PLGA core and a TRAIL-modified cell membrane shell. Upon laser irradiation, it generates ROS in targeted cancer cells, improving DR5 expression, triggering cytochrome c release from mitochondria, and strengthening TRAIL-induced apoptosis [159]. Furthermore, considering that DcRs can competitively block TRAIL's interaction with DR4 and DR5, potentially conferring resistance to TRAIL in tumor cells [160, 161], and that DcR2 may induce non-apoptotic signaling pathways [22], using DR4-specific [162] or DR5-specific [163, 164] TRAIL variants as the main body for fusion could represent a viable option [93].

We note that while a small portion of fusion protein designs utilize computer-aided design, the majority still rely on empirical screening approaches with high uncertainty. Unexpected outcomes, including improper folding, reduced biological activity, and unforeseen toxicity, frequently arise, highlighting our limited understanding of the structure–function relationships in these fusion proteins [165]. Nowadays, computational methods have revolutionized protein engineering, allowing a diverse set of biocomputing capabilities such as prediction of protein three-dimensional models, characterization of protein–protein interactions, and the molecular dynamics simulations [166]. We believe that prevalidation of fusion protein conformational state and overall quality through biocomputing methods will make the design of TRAIL fusion proteins more efficient and rational.

Overall, we are inclined to believe that an optimal strategy for engineering TRAIL fusion proteins should ideally address all the three issues: pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and resistance. Among these, the most critical goal should be increasing the oligomerization of recombinant TRAIL without the formation of aggregates. Other desirable attributes might encompass improved tumor targeting, the ability to overcome resistance, and prolonged half-life. It is imperative to emphasize that vigilance on hepatotoxicity should accompany the entire process, from the initial design to the validation of antitumor activity.

Notwithstanding a number of challenges in the way, TRAIL remains one of the most promising approaches for cancer treatment. Rational design of fusion proteins, or further development based on this approach, could potentially provide opportunities for the clinical use of TRAIL-based therapeutics.

Author Contributions

Yan Wang: conceptualization (lead), data curation (equal), funding acquisition (lead), visualization (equal), writing – original draft (lead), writing – review and editing (lead). Xin Qian: data curation (equal), visualization (equal), writing – original draft (equal), writing – review and editing (equal). Yubo Wang: data curation (equal). Caiyuan Yu: data curation (equal), writing – review and editing (supporting). Li Feng: data curation (equal), writing – review and editing (supporting). Xiaoyan Zheng: data curation (equal). Yaya Wang: data curation (equal). Qiuhong Gong: conceptualization (supporting), supervision (lead), writing – review and editing (supporting).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Open Research

Data Availability Statement

The authors have nothing to report.

References

1 H. Dianat-Moghadam, M. Heidarifard, A. Mahari, et al., “TRAIL in Oncology: From Recombinant TRAIL to Nano- and Self-Targeted TRAIL-Based Therapies,” Pharmacological Research 155 (2020): 104716.
10.1016/j.phrs.2020.104716
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
2 B. Thapa, R. Kc, and H. Uludag, “TRAIL Therapy and Prospective Developments for Cancer Treatment,” Journal of Controlled Release 326 (2020): 335–349.
10.1016/j.jconrel.2020.07.013
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
3 K. Takeda, Y. Hayakawa, M. J. Smyth, et al., “Involvement of Tumor Necrosis Factor-Related Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand in Surveillance of Tumor Metastasis by Liver Natural Killer Cells,” Nature Medicine 7 (2001): 94–100.
10.1038/83416
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
4 J. L. Bodmer, P. Meier, J. Tschopp, and P. Schneider, “Cysteine 230 Is Essential for the Structure and Activity of the Cytotoxic Ligand TRAIL,” Journal of Biological Chemistry 275 (2000): 20632–20637.
10.1074/jbc.M909721199
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
5 H. Wajant, “Molecular Mode of Action of TRAIL Receptor Agonists-Common Principles and Their Translational Exploitation,” Cancers (Basel) 11 (2019): 954.
10.3390/cancers11070954
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
6 J. M. Pimentel, J. Y. Zhou, and G. S. Wu, “The Role of TRAIL in Apoptosis and Immunosurveillance in Cancer,” Cancers (Basel) 15 (2023): 2752.
10.3390/cancers15102752
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
7 F. K. Chan, “Three Is Better Than One: Pre-Ligand Receptor Assembly in the Regulation of TNF Receptor Signaling,” Cytokine 37 (2007): 101–107.
10.1016/j.cyto.2007.03.005
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
8 P. Schneider, M. Thome, K. Burns, et al., “TRAIL Receptors 1 (DR4) and 2 (DR5) Signal FADD-Dependent Apoptosis and Activate NF-kappaB,” Immunity 7 (1997): 831–836.
10.1016/S1074-7613(00)80401-X
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
9 K. X. J. Jong, E. H. M. Mohamed, and Z. A. Ibrahim, “Escaping Cell Death via TRAIL Decoy Receptors: A Systematic Review of Their Roles and Expressions in Colorectal Cancer,” Apoptosis 27 (2022): 787–799.
10.1007/s10495-022-01774-5
PubMed Google Scholar
10 E. S. Vanamee and D. L. Faustman, “The Benefits of Clustering in TNF Receptor Superfamily Signaling,” Frontiers in Immunology 14 (2023): 1225704.
10.3389/fimmu.2023.1225704
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
11 F. C. Kischkel, D. A. Lawrence, A. Chuntharapai, P. Schow, K. J. Kim, and A. Ashkenazi, “Apo2L/TRAIL-Dependent Recruitment of Endogenous FADD and Caspase-8 to Death Receptors 4 and 5,” Immunity 12 (2000): 611–620.
10.1016/S1074-7613(00)80212-5
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
12 Y. T. Oh and S. Y. Sun, “Regulation of Cancer Metastasis by TRAIL/Death Receptor Signaling,” Biomolecules 11 (2021): 499.
10.3390/biom11040499
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
13 Z. T. Schug, F. Gonzalvez, R. H. Houtkooper, F. M. Vaz, and E. Gottlieb, “BID Is Cleaved by Caspase-8 Within a Native Complex on the Mitochondrial Membrane,” Cell Death and Differentiation 18 (2011): 538–548.
10.1038/cdd.2010.135
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
14 R. W. Johnstone, A. J. Frew, and M. J. Smyth, “The TRAIL Apoptotic Pathway in Cancer Onset, Progression and Therapy, Nature Reviews,” Cancer 8 (2008): 782–798.
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
15 K. Newton, K. E. Wickliffe, D. L. Dugger, et al., “Cleavage of RIPK1 by Caspase-8 Is Crucial for Limiting Apoptosis and Necroptosis,” Nature 574 (2019): 428–431.
10.1038/s41586-019-1548-x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
16 M. Mompean, W. Li, J. Li, et al., “The Structure of the Necrosome RIPK1-RIPK3 Core, a Human Hetero-Amyloid Signaling Complex,” Cell 173 (2018): 1244–1253.
10.1016/j.cell.2018.03.032
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
17 C. M. Henry and S. J. Martin, “Caspase-8 Acts in a Non-Enzymatic Role as a Scaffold for Assembly of a Pro-Inflammatory “FADDosome” Complex Upon TRAIL Stimulation,” Molecular Cell 65 (2017): 715–729.
10.1016/j.molcel.2017.01.022
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
18 E. Varfolomeev, H. Maecker, D. Sharp, et al., “Molecular Determinants of Kinase Pathway Activation by Apo2 Ligand/Tumor Necrosis Factor-Related Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand,” Journal of Biological Chemistry 280 (2005): 40599–40608.
10.1074/jbc.M509560200
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
19 P. Davidovich, C. A. Higgins, Z. Najda, D. B. Longley, and S. J. Martin, “cFLIP(L) Acts as a Suppressor of TRAIL- and Fas-Initiated Inflammation by Inhibiting Assembly of Caspase-8/FADD/RIPK1 NF-kappaB-Activating Complexes,” Cell Reports 42 (2023): 113476.
10.1016/j.celrep.2023.113476
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
20 E. Lafont, C. Kantari-Mimoun, P. Draber, et al., “The Linear Ubiquitin Chain Assembly Complex Regulates TRAIL-Induced Gene Activation and Cell Death,” EMBO Journal 36 (2017): 1147–1166.
10.15252/embj.201695699
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
21 K. Azijli, B. Weyhenmeyer, G. J. Peters, S. de Jong, and F. A. Kruyt, “Non-Canonical Kinase Signaling by the Death Ligand TRAIL in Cancer Cells: Discord in the Death Receptor Family,” Cell Death and Differentiation 20 (2013): 858–868.
10.1038/cdd.2013.28
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
22 J. Yang, F. R. LeBlanc, S. A. Dighe, et al., “TRAIL Mediates and Sustains Constitutive NF-kappaB Activation in LGL Leukemia,” Blood 131 (2018): 2803–2815.
10.1182/blood-2017-09-808816
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
23 S. H. M. Wong, W. Y. Kong, C. M. Fang, et al., “The TRAIL to Cancer Therapy: Hindrances and Potential Solutions,” Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology 143 (2019): 81–94.
10.1016/j.critrevonc.2019.08.008
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
24 A. Belch, A. Sharma, A. Spencer, et al., “A Multicenter Randomized Phase II Trial of Mapatumumab, a TRAIL-R1 Agonist Monoclonal Antibody, in Combination With Bortezomib in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma (MM),” Blood 116 (2010): 5031.
10.1182/blood.V116.21.5031.5031
Google Scholar
25 T. Ciuleanu, I. Bazin, D. Lungulescu, et al., “A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase II Study to Assess the Efficacy and Safety of Mapatumumab With Sorafenib in Patients With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma,” Annals of Oncology 27 (2016): 680–687.
10.1093/annonc/mdw004
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
26 J. von Pawel, J. H. Harvey, D. R. Spigel, et al., “Phase II Trial of Mapatumumab, a Fully Human Agonist Monoclonal Antibody to Tumor Necrosis Factor-Related Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand Receptor 1 (TRAIL-R1), in Combination With Paclitaxel and Carboplatin in Patients With Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer,” Clinical Lung Cancer 15 (2014): 188–196.
10.1016/j.cllc.2013.12.005
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
27 A. Younes, J. M. Vose, A. D. Zelenetz, et al., “A Phase 1b/2 Trial of Mapatumumab in Patients With Relapsed/Refractory Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma,” British Journal of Cancer 103 (2010): 1783–1787.
10.1038/sj.bjc.6605987
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
28 T. Trarbach, M. Moehler, V. Heinemann, et al., “Phase II Trial of Mapatumumab, a Fully Human Agonistic Monoclonal Antibody That Targets and Activates the Tumour Necrosis Factor Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand Receptor-1 (TRAIL-R1), in Patients With Refractory Colorectal Cancer,” British Journal of Cancer 102 (2010): 506–512.
10.1038/sj.bjc.6605507
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
29 C. S. Fuchs, M. Fakih, L. Schwartzberg, et al., “TRAIL Receptor Agonist Conatumumab With Modified FOLFOX6 Plus Bevacizumab for First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer: A Randomized Phase 1b/2 Trial,” Cancer 119 (2013): 4290–4298.
10.1002/cncr.28353
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
30 H. L. Kindler, D. A. Richards, L. E. Garbo, et al., “A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Phase 2 Study of Ganitumab (AMG 479) or Conatumumab (AMG 655) in Combination With Gemcitabine in Patients With Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer,” Annals of Oncology 23 (2012): 2834–2842.
10.1093/annonc/mds142
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
31 A. L. Cheng, Y. K. Kang, A. R. He, et al., “Safety and Efficacy of Tigatuzumab Plus Sorafenib as First-Line Therapy in Subjects With Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Phase 2 Randomized Study,” Journal of Hepatology 63 (2015): 896–904.
10.1016/j.jhep.2015.06.001
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
32 A. Forero-Torres, J. R. Infante, D. Waterhouse, et al., “Phase 2, Multicenter, Open-Label Study of Tigatuzumab (CS-1008), a Humanized Monoclonal Antibody Targeting Death Receptor 5, in Combination With Gemcitabine in Chemotherapy-Naive Patients With Unresectable or Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer,” Cancer Medicine 2 (2013): 925–932.
10.1002/cam4.137
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
33 M. Reck, M. Krzakowski, E. Chmielowska, et al., “A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 2 Study of Tigatuzumab (CS-1008) in Combination With Carboplatin/Paclitaxel in Patients With Chemotherapy-Naive Metastatic/Unresectable Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer,” Lung Cancer 82 (2013): 441–448.
10.1016/j.lungcan.2013.09.014
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
34 A. D. Baron, C. L. O'Bryant, Y. Choi, A. Ashkenazi, S. Royer-Joo, and C. C. Portera, “Phase Ib Study of Drozitumab Combined With Cetuximab (CET) Plus Irinotecan (IRI) or With FOLFIRI ± Bevacizumab (BV) in Previously Treated Patients (Pts) With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer (mCRC),” Journal of Clinical Oncology 29 (2011): 3581.
10.1200/jco.2011.29.15_suppl.3581
Web of Science® Google Scholar
35 M. S. Merchant, J. I. Geller, K. Baird, et al., “Phase I Trial and Pharmacokinetic Study of Lexatumumab in Pediatric Patients With Solid Tumors,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 30 (2012): 4141–4147.
10.1200/JCO.2012.44.1055
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
36 H. A. Wakelee, A. Patnaik, B. I. Sikic, et al., “Phase I and Pharmacokinetic Study of Lexatumumab (HGS-ETR2) Given Every 2 Weeks in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors,” Annals of Oncology 21 (2010): 376–381.
10.1093/annonc/mdp292
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
37 S. Sharma, E. G. de Vries, J. R. Infante, et al., “Safety, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamics of the DR5 Antibody LBY135 Alone and in Combination With Capecitabine in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors,” Investigational New Drugs 32 (2014): 135–144.
10.1007/s10637-013-9952-9
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
38 R. S. Herbst, S. G. Eckhardt, R. Kurzrock, et al., “Phase I Dose-Escalation Study of Recombinant Human Apo2L/TRAIL, a Dual Proapoptotic Receptor Agonist, in Patients With Advanced Cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 28 (2010): 2839–2846.
10.1200/JCO.2009.25.1991
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
39 J. C. Soria, E. Smit, D. Khayat, et al., “Phase 1b Study of Dulanermin (Recombinant Human Apo2L/TRAIL) in Combination With Paclitaxel, Carboplatin, and Bevacizumab in Patients With Advanced Non-Squamous Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 28 (2010): 1527–1533.
10.1200/JCO.2009.25.4847
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
40 J. C. Soria, Z. Mark, P. Zatloukal, et al., “Randomized Phase II Study of Dulanermin in Combination With Paclitaxel, Carboplatin, and Bevacizumab in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 29 (2011): 4442–4451.
10.1200/JCO.2011.37.2623
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
41 X. Ouyang, M. Shi, F. Jie, et al., “Phase III Study of Dulanermin (Recombinant Human Tumor Necrosis Factor-Related Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand/Apo2 Ligand) Combined With Vinorelbine and Cisplatin in Patients With Advanced Non-small-Cell Lung Cancer,” Investigational New Drugs 36 (2018): 315–322.
10.1007/s10637-017-0536-y
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
42 C. Y. Cheah, D. Belada, M. A. Fanale, et al., “Dulanermin With Rituximab in Patients With Relapsed Indolent B-Cell Lymphoma: An Open-Label Phase 1b/2 Randomised Study,” Lancet Haematology 2 (2015): e166–e174.
10.1016/S2352-3026(15)00026-5
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
43 Z. A. Wainberg, W. A. Messersmith, P. F. Peddi, et al., “A Phase 1B Study of Dulanermin in Combination With Modified FOLFOX6 Plus Bevacizumab in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Cancer,” Clinical Colorectal Cancer 12 (2013): 248–254.
10.1016/j.clcc.2013.06.002
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
44 D. Belada, J. Mayer, M. S. Czuczman, I. W. Flinn, B. Durbin-Johnson, and G. L. Bray, “Phase II Study of Dulanermin Plus Rituximab in Patients With Relapsed Follicular Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma (NHL),” Journal of Clinical Oncology 28 (2010): 8104.
10.1200/jco.2010.28.15_suppl.8104
Google Scholar
45 M. Snajdauf, K. Havlova, J. Vachtenheim, Jr., et al., “The TRAIL in the Treatment of Human Cancer: An Update on Clinical Trials,” Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences 8 (2021): 628332.
10.3389/fmolb.2021.628332
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
46 C. Geng, J. Hou, Y. Zhao, et al., “A Multicenter, Open-Label Phase II Study of Recombinant CPT (Circularly Permuted TRAIL) Plus Thalidomide in Patients With Relapsed and Refractory Multiple Myeloma,” American Journal of Hematology 89 (2014): 1037–1042.
10.1002/ajh.23822
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
47 J. Hou, L. Qiu, Y. Zhao, et al., “A Phase1b Dose Escalation Study of Recombinant Circularly Permuted TRAIL in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma,” American Journal of Clinical Oncology 41 (2018): 1008–1014.
10.1097/COC.0000000000000404
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
48 Y. Leng, L. Qiu, J. Hou, et al., “Phase II Open-Label Study of Recombinant Circularly Permuted TRAIL as a Single-Agent Treatment for Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma,” Chinese Journal of Cancer 35 (2016): 86.
10.1186/s40880-016-0140-0
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
49 Z. Xia, Y. Leng, B. Fang, et al., “Aponermin or Placebo in Combination With Thalidomide and Dexamethasone in the Treatment of Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma (CPT-MM301): ARandomised, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled, Phase 3 Trial,” BMC Cancer 23 (2023): 980.
10.1186/s12885-023-11489-8
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
50 E. W. Duiker, E. C. Dijkers, H. Lambers Heerspink, et al., “Development of a Radioiodinated Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand, rhTRAIL, and a Radiolabelled Agonist TRAIL Receptor Antibody for Clinical Imaging Studies,” British Journal of Pharmacology 165 (2012): 2203–2212.
10.1111/j.1476-5381.2011.01718.x
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
51 E. S. Vanamee and D. L. Faustman, “On the TRAIL of Better Therapies: Understanding TNFRSF Structure-Function,” Cells 9 (2020): 764.
10.3390/cells9030764
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
52 H. Wajant, D. Moosmayer, T. Wuest, et al., “Differential Activation of TRAIL-R1 and −2 by Soluble and Membrane TRAIL Allows Selective Surface Antigen-Directed Activation of TRAIL-R2 by a Soluble TRAIL Derivative,” Oncogene 20 (2001): 4101–4106.
10.1038/sj.onc.1204558
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
53 S. G. Hymowitz, M. P. O'Connell, M. H. Ultsch, et al., “A Unique Zinc-Binding Site Revealed by a High-Resolution X-Ray Structure of Homotrimeric Apo2L/TRAIL,” Biochemistry 39 (2000): 633–640.
10.1021/bi992242l
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
54 B. Schneider, S. Munkel, A. Krippner-Heidenreich, et al., “Potent Antitumoral Activity of TRAIL Through Generation of Tumor-Targeted Single-Chain Fusion Proteins,” Cell Death & Disease 1 (2010): e68.
10.1038/cddis.2010.45
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
55 D. V. Rozanov, A. Y. Savinov, V. S. Golubkov, et al., “Engineering a Leucine Zipper-TRAIL Homotrimer With Improved Cytotoxicity in Tumor Cells,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics 8 (2009): 1515–1525.
10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-09-0202
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
56 D. Berg, M. Lehne, N. Muller, et al., “Enforced Covalent Trimerization Increases the Activity of the TNF Ligand Family Members TRAIL and CD95L,” Cell Death and Differentiation 14 (2007): 2021–2034.
10.1038/sj.cdd.4402213
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
57 J. Yan, L. Wang, Z. Wang, et al., “Engineered Adenovirus Fiber Shaft Fusion Homotrimer of Soluble TRAIL With Enhanced Stability and Antitumor Activity,” Cell Death & Disease 7 (2016): e2274.
10.1038/cddis.2016.177
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
58 L. Q. Pan, Z. M. Xie, X. J. Tang, et al., “Engineering and Refolding of a Novel Trimeric Fusion Protein TRAIL-Collagen XVIII NC1,” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 97 (2013): 7253–7264.
10.1007/s00253-012-4604-0
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
59 H. Liu, D. Su, J. Zhang, et al., “Improvement of Pharmacokinetic Profile of TRAIL via Trimer-Tag Enhances Its Antitumor Activity In Vivo,” Scientific Reports 7 (2017): 8953.
10.1038/s41598-017-09518-1
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
60 X. Wu, P. Li, C. Qian, O. Li, and Y. Zhou, “Trimeric Coiled-Coil Domain of Human Pulmonary Surfactant Protein D Enhances Zinc-Binding Ability and Biologic Activity of Soluble TRAIL,” Molecular Immunology 46 (2009): 2381–2388.
10.1016/j.molimm.2009.03.004
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
61 Y. Guo, A. Roohullah, J. Xue, et al., “Abstract 6180: First-In-Human (FIH) Phase I Studies of SCB-313, a Novel TNF-Related Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand TRAIL-Trimer™ Fusion Protein, for Treatment of Patients (Pts) With Malignant Ascites (MA),” Cancer Research 82 (2022): 6180.
10.1158/1538-7445.AM2022-6180
Google Scholar
62 A. Ashkenazi, “Targeting Death and Decoy Receptors of the Tumour-Necrosis Factor Superfamily,” Nature Reviews. Cancer 2 (2002): 420–430.
10.1038/nrc821
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
63 S. R. Wiley, K. Schooley, P. J. Smolak, et al., “Identification and Characterization of a New Member of the TNF Family That Induces Apoptosis,” Immunity 3 (1995): 673–682.
10.1016/1074-7613(95)90057-8
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
64 F. Muhlenbeck, P. Schneider, J. L. Bodmer, et al., “The Tumor Necrosis Factor-Related Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand Receptors TRAIL-R1 and TRAIL-R2 Have Distinct Cross-Linking Requirements for Initiation of Apoptosis and Are Non-redundant in JNK Activation,” Journal of Biological Chemistry 275 (2000): 32208–32213.
10.1074/jbc.M000482200
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
65 J. H. Han, A. R. Moon, J. H. Chang, et al., “Potentiation of TRAIL Killing Activity by Multimerization Through Isoleucine Zipper Hexamerization Motif,” BMB Reports 49 (2016): 282–287.
10.5483/BMBRep.2016.49.5.245
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
66 P. G. Richardson, A. R. Polepally, M. Motwani, et al., “A Phase 1b, Open-Label Study of Eftozanermin Alfa in Combination With Bortezomib and Dexamethasone in Patients With Relapsed or Refractory Multiple Myeloma,” Blood 136 (2020): 16–17.
10.1182/blood-2020-137037
Google Scholar
67 G. Shin, J. E. Lee, S.-Y. Lee, D.-H. Lee, and S. I. Lim, “Spatially Organized Nanoassembly of Single-Chain TRAIL That Induces Optimal Death Receptor Clustering and Cancer-Specific Apoptosis,” Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology 95 (2024): 105638.
10.1016/j.jddst.2024.105638
CAS Google Scholar
68 O. Seifert, A. Plappert, S. Fellermeier, M. Siegemund, K. Pfizenmaier, and R. E. Kontermann, “Tetravalent Antibody-scTRAIL Fusion Proteins With Improved Properties,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics 13 (2014): 101–111.
10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-13-0396
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
69 D. C. Phillips, F. G. Buchanan, D. Cheng, et al., “Hexavalent TRAIL Fusion Protein Eftozanermin Alfa Optimally Clusters Apoptosis-Inducing TRAIL Receptors to Induce on-Target Antitumor Activity in Solid Tumors,” Cancer Research 81 (2021): 3402–3414.
10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-20-2178
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
70 H. Yang, H. Li, F. Yang, et al., “Molecular Superglue-Mediated Higher-Order Assembly of TRAIL Variants With Superior Apoptosis Induction and Antitumor Activity,” Biomaterials 295 (2023): 121994.
10.1016/j.biomaterials.2023.121994
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
71 J. D. Yoo, S. M. Bae, J. Seo, et al., “Designed Ferritin Nanocages Displaying Trimeric TRAIL and Tumor-Targeting Peptides Confer Superior Anti-Tumor Efficacy,” Scientific Reports 10 (2020): 19997.
10.1038/s41598-020-77095-x
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
72 T. She, F. Yang, S. Chen, et al., “Snoopligase-Catalyzed Molecular Glue Enables Efficient Generation of Hyperoligomerized TRAIL Variant With Enhanced Antitumor Effect,” Journal of Controlled Release 361 (2023): 856–870.
10.1016/j.jconrel.2023.07.042
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
73 Y. Wang, Q. Lei, C. Shen, and N. Wang, “NCTR(25) Fusion Facilitates the Formation of TRAIL Polymers That Selectively Activate TRAIL Receptors With Higher Potency and Efficacy Than TRAIL,” Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology 88 (2021): 289–306.
10.1007/s00280-021-04283-5
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
74 K. Huang, N. Duan, C. Zhang, R. Mo, and Z. Hua, “Improved Antitumor Activity of TRAIL Fusion Protein via Formation of Self-Assembling Nanoparticle,” Scientific Reports 7 (2017): 41904.
10.1038/srep41904
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
75 T. B. Prigozhina, F. Szafer, A. Aronin, et al., “Fn14.TRAIL Fusion Protein Is Oligomerized by TWEAK Into a Superefficient TRAIL Analog,” Cancer Letters 400 (2017): 99–109.
10.1016/j.canlet.2017.04.026
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
76 P. LoRusso, M. J. Ratain, T. Doi, et al., “Eftozanermin Alfa (ABBV-621) Monotherapy in Patients With Previously Treated Solid Tumors: Findings of a Phase 1, First-In-Human Study,” Investigational New Drugs 40 (2022): 762–772.
10.1007/s10637-022-01247-1
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
77 M. Siegemund, F. Schneider, M. Hutt, et al., “IgG-Single-Chain TRAIL Fusion Proteins for Tumour Therapy,” Scientific Reports 8 (2018): 7808.
10.1038/s41598-018-24450-8
PubMed Google Scholar
78 Y. Zhang, G. Zhao, Y. F. Chen, et al., “Engineering Nano-Clustered Multivalent Agonists to Cross-Link TNF Receptors for Cancer Therapy,” Aggregate 4 (2023): e393.
10.1002/agt2.393
CAS Google Scholar
79 Y. Wang, Q. Lei, Z. Yan, C. Shen, and N. Wang, “TGF3L Fusion Enhances the Antitumor Activity of TRAIL by Promoting Assembly Into Polymers,” Biochemical Pharmacology 155 (2018): 510–523.
10.1016/j.bcp.2018.07.035
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
80 C. Gieffers, M. Kluge, C. Merz, et al., “APG350 Induces Superior Clustering of TRAIL Receptors and Shows Therapeutic Antitumor Efficacy Independent of Cross-Linking via Fcgamma Receptors,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics 12 (2013): 2735–2747.
10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-13-0323
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
81 D. Deng and K. Shah, “TRAIL of Hope Meeting Resistance in Cancer, Trends,” Cancer 6 (2020): 989–1001.
CAS Google Scholar
82 M. Jo, T. H. Kim, D. W. Seol, et al., “Apoptosis Induced in Normal Human Hepatocytes by Tumor Necrosis Factor-Related Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand,” Nature Medicine 6 (2000): 564–567.
10.1038/75045
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
83 M. Hutt, S. Fellermeier-Kopf, O. Seifert, L. C. Schmitt, K. Pfizenmaier, and R. E. Kontermann, “Targeting scFv-Fc-scTRAIL Fusion Proteins to Tumor Cells,” Oncotarget 9 (2018): 11322–11335.
10.18632/oncotarget.24379
PubMed Google Scholar
84 Y. Zhu, N. Bassoff, C. Reinshagen, et al., “Bi-Specific Molecule Against EGFR and Death Receptors Simultaneously Targets Proliferation and Death Pathways in Tumors,” Scientific Reports 7 (2017): 2602.
10.1038/s41598-017-02483-9
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
85 M. Siegemund, O. Seifert, M. Zarani, et al., “An Optimized Antibody-Single-Chain TRAIL Fusion Protein for Cancer Therapy,” MAbs 8 (2016): 879–891.
10.1080/19420862.2016.1172163
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
86 Z. Wang, L. Chi, and Y. Shen, “Design, Expression, Purification and Characterization of the Recombinant Immunotoxin 4D5 scFv-TRAIL,” International Journal of Peptide Research and Therapeutics 26 (2019): 889–897.
10.1007/s10989-019-09894-4
CAS Google Scholar
87 Y. Katayama, J. Uchino, Y. Chihara, et al., “Tumor Neovascularization and Developments in Therapeutics,” Cancers (Basel) 11 (2019): 316.
10.3390/cancers11030316
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
88 R. S. Goydel and C. Rader, “Antibody-Based Cancer Therapy,” Oncogene 40 (2021): 3655–3664.
10.1038/s41388-021-01811-8
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
89 M. de Bruyn, A. A. Rybczynska, Y. Wei, et al., “Melanoma-Associated Chondroitin Sulfate Proteoglycan (MCSP)-Targeted Delivery of Soluble TRAIL Potently Inhibits Melanoma Outgrowth In Vitro and In Vivo,” Molecular Cancer 9 (2010): 301.
10.1186/1476-4598-9-301
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
90 D. Winterberg, L. Lenk, M. Osswald, et al., “Engineering of CD19 Antibodies: A CD19-TRAIL Fusion Construct Specifically Induces Apoptosis in B-Cell Precursor Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia (BCP-ALL) Cells In Vivo,” Journal of Clinical Medicine 10 (2021): 2634.
10.3390/jcm10122634
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
91 M. El-Mesery, J. Trebing, V. Schafer, D. Weisenberger, D. Siegmund, and H. Wajant, “CD40-Directed scFv-TRAIL Fusion Proteins Induce CD40-Restricted Tumor Cell Death and Activate Dendritic Cells,” Cell Death & Disease 4 (2013): e916.
10.1038/cddis.2013.402
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
92 B. ten Cate, E. Bremer, M. de Bruyn, et al., “A Novel AML-Selective TRAIL Fusion Protein That Is Superior to Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin in Terms of In Vitro Selectivity, Activity and Stability,” Leukemia 23 (2009): 1389–1397.
10.1038/leu.2009.34
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
93 E. Bremer, D. F. Samplonius, M. Peipp, et al., “Target Cell-Restricted Apoptosis Induction of Acute Leukemic T Cells by a Recombinant Tumor Necrosis Factor-Related Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand Fusion Protein With Specificity for Human CD7,” Cancer Research 65 (2005): 3380–3388.
10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-04-2756
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
94 R. De Luca, P. Kachel, K. Kropivsek, B. Snijder, M. G. Manz, and D. Neri, “A Novel Dual-Cytokine-Antibody Fusion Protein for the Treatment of CD38-Positive Malignancies,” Protein Engineering, Design & Selection 31 (2018): 173–179.
10.1093/protein/gzy015
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
95 V. R. Wiersma, Y. He, D. F. Samplonius, et al., “A CD47-Blocking TRAIL Fusion Protein With Dual Pro-Phagocytic and Pro-Apoptotic Anticancer Activity,” British Journal of Haematology 164 (2014): 304–307.
10.1111/bjh.12617
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
96 D. Hendriks, Y. He, I. Koopmans, et al., “Programmed Death Ligand 1 (PD-L1)-Targeted TRAIL Combines PD-L1-Mediated Checkpoint Inhibition With TRAIL-Mediated Apoptosis Induction,” Oncoimmunology 5 (2016): e1202390.
10.1080/2162402X.2016.1202390
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
97 C. Yan, S. Li, Z. Li, et al., “Human Umbilical Cord Mesenchymal Stem Cells as Vehicles of CD20-Specific TRAIL Fusion Protein Delivery: A Double-Target Therapy Against Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma,” Molecular Pharmaceutics 10 (2013): 142–151.
10.1021/mp300261e
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
98 L. H. Wang, C. W. Ni, Y. Z. Lin, et al., “Targeted Induction of Apoptosis in Glioblastoma Multiforme Cells by an MRP3-Specific TRAIL Fusion Protein In Vitro,” Tumour Biology 35 (2014): 1157–1168.
10.1007/s13277-013-1155-7
PubMed Google Scholar
99 J. Trebing, M. El-Mesery, V. Schafer, et al., “CD70-Restricted Specific Activation of TRAILR1 or TRAILR2 Using scFv-Targeted TRAIL Mutants,” Cell Death & Disease 5 (2014): e1035.
10.1038/cddis.2013.555
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
100 N. E. Weisser and J. C. Hall, “Applications of Single-Chain Variable Fragment Antibodies in Therapeutics and Diagnostics,” Biotechnology Advances 27 (2009): 502–520.
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2009.04.004
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
101 F. Hartung, T. Kruwel, X. Shi, et al., “A Novel Anti-Kv10.1 Nanobody Fused to Single-Chain TRAIL Enhances Apoptosis Induction in Cancer Cells,” Frontiers in Pharmacology 11 (2020): 686.
10.3389/fphar.2020.00686
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
102 J. W. Checco, D. F. Kreitler, N. C. Thomas, et al., “Targeting Diverse Protein-Protein Interaction Interfaces With Alpha/Beta-Peptides Derived From the Z-Domain Scaffold,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112 (2015): 4552–4557.
10.1073/pnas.1420380112
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
103 X. Xia, X. Yang, W. Huang, X. Xia, and D. Yan, “Self-Assembled Nanomicelles of Affibody-Drug Conjugate With Excellent Therapeutic Property to Cure Ovary and Breast Cancers,” Nano-Micro Letters 14 (2021): 33.
10.1007/s40820-021-00762-9
PubMed Google Scholar
104 Z. Tao, Y. Liu, H. Yang, et al., “Customizing a Tridomain TRAIL Variant to Achieve Active Tumor Homing and Endogenous Albumin-Controlled Release of the Molecular Machine In Vivo,” Biomacromolecules 21 (2020): 4017–4029.
10.1021/acs.biomac.0c00785
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
105 A. V. Yagolovich, A. A. Artykov, A. A. Isakova, et al., “Optimized Heterologous Expression and Efficient Purification of a New TRAIL-Based Antitumor Fusion Protein SRH-DR5-B With Dual VEGFR2 and DR5 Receptor Specificity,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23 (2022): 5860.
10.3390/ijms23115860
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
106 X. Wang, X. Qiao, Y. Shang, et al., “RGD and NGR Modified TRAIL Protein Exhibited Potent Anti-Metastasis Effects on TRAIL-Insensitive Cancer Cells In Vitro and In Vivo,” Amino Acids 49 (2017): 931–941.
10.1007/s00726-017-2395-4
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
107 J. Madhumathi, S. Sridevi, and R. S. Verma, “Novel TNF-Related Apoptotic-Inducing Ligand-Based Immunotoxin for Therapeutic Targeting of CD25 Positive Leukemia, Target,” Oncologia 11 (2016): 535–547.
Google Scholar
108 Y. Su, K. Tatzel, X. Wang, et al., “Mesothelin's Minimal MUC16 Binding Moiety Converts TR3 Into a Potent Cancer Therapeutic via Hierarchical Binding Events at the Plasma Membrane,” Oncotarget 7 (2016): 31534–31549.
10.18632/oncotarget.8925
PubMed Google Scholar
109 F. M. Uckun, D. E. Myers, S. Qazi, et al., “Recombinant Human CD19L-sTRAIL Effectively Targets B Cell Precursor Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia,” Journal of Clinical Investigation 125 (2015): 1006–1018.
10.1172/JCI76610
PubMed Google Scholar
110 X. Yang, X. Xia, X. X. Xia, Z. Sun, and D. Yan, “Improving Targeted Delivery and Antitumor Efficacy With Engineered Tumor Necrosis Factor-Related Apoptosis Ligand-Affibody Fusion Protein,” Molecular Pharmaceutics 18 (2021): 3854–3861.
10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.1c00483
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
111 Z. Li, T. She, H. Yang, et al., “A Novel Tumor-Homing TRAIL Variant Eradicates Tumor Xenografts of Refractory Colorectal Cancer Cells in Combination With Tumor Cell-Targeted Photodynamic Therapy,” Drug Delivery 29 (2022): 1698–1711.
10.1080/10717544.2022.2079766
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
112 A. V. Yagolovich, A. A. Isakova, A. A. Artykov, et al., “DR5-Selective TRAIL Variant DR5-B Functionalized With Tumor-Penetrating iRGD Peptide for Enhanced Antitumor Activity Against Glioblastoma,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23 (2022): 12687.
10.3390/ijms232012687
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
113 M. Kopczynski, M. Statkiewicz, M. Cybulska, et al., “Cytotoxic Efficacy and Resistance Mechanism of a TRAIL and VEGFA-Peptide Fusion Protein in Colorectal Cancer Models,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22 (2021): 3160.
10.3390/ijms22063160
PubMed Google Scholar
114 P. Rozga, D. Kloska, S. Pawlak, et al., “Novel Engineered TRAIL-Based Chimeric Protein Strongly Inhibits Tumor Growth and Bypasses TRAIL Resistance,” International Journal of Cancer 147 (2020): 1117–1130.
10.1002/ijc.32845
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
115 J. Fan, Z. Wang, L. Huang, and Y. Shen, “Efficient Refolding of the Bifunctional Therapeutic Fusion Protein VAS-TRAIL by a Triple Agent Solution,” Protein Expression and Purification 125 (2016): 68–73.
10.1016/j.pep.2015.09.007
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
116 N. A. Fanger, C. R. Maliszewski, K. Schooley, and T. S. Griffith, “Human Dendritic Cells Mediate Cellular Apoptosis via Tumor Necrosis Factor-Related Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand (TRAIL),” Journal of Experimental Medicine 190 (1999): 1155–1164.
10.1084/jem.190.8.1155
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
117 T. S. Griffith, S. R. Wiley, M. Z. Kubin, L. M. Sedger, C. R. Maliszewski, and N. A. Fanger, “Monocyte-Mediated Tumoricidal Activity via the Tumor Necrosis Factor-Related Cytokine, TRAIL,” Journal of Experimental Medicine 189 (1999): 1343–1354.
10.1084/jem.189.8.1343
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
118 N. Kayagaki, N. Yamaguchi, M. Nakayama, H. Eto, K. Okumura, and H. Yagita, “Type I Interferons (IFNs) Regulate Tumor Necrosis Factor-Related Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand (TRAIL) Expression on Human T Cells: A Novel Mechanism for the Antitumor Effects of Type I IFNs,” Journal of Experimental Medicine 189 (1999): 1451–1460.
10.1084/jem.189.9.1451
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
119 Y. Koga, A. Matsuzaki, A. Suminoe, H. Hattori, and T. Hara, “Neutrophil-Derived TNF-Related Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand (TRAIL): A Novel Mechanism of Antitumor Effect by Neutrophils,” Cancer Research 64 (2004): 1037–1043.
10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-03-1808
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
120 P. Mirandola, C. Ponti, G. Gobbi, et al., “Activated Human NK and CD8⁺ T Cells Express Both TNF-Related Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand (TRAIL) and TRAIL Receptors but Are Resistant to TRAIL-Mediated Cytotoxicity,” Blood 104 (2004): 2418–2424.
10.1182/blood-2004-04-1294
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
121 M. de Bruyn, Y. Wei, V. R. Wiersma, et al., “Cell Surface Delivery of TRAIL Strongly Augments the Tumoricidal Activity of T Cells,” Clinical Cancer Research 17 (2011): 5626–5637.
10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-11-0303
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
122 V. R. Wiersma, M. de Bruyn, C. Shi, et al., “C-Type Lectin-Like Molecule-1 (CLL1)-Targeted TRAIL Augments the Tumoricidal Activity of Granulocytes and Potentiates Therapeutic Antibody-Dependent Cell-Mediated Cytotoxicity,” MAbs 7 (2015): 321–330.
10.1080/19420862.2015.1007811
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
123 S. K. Kelley, L. A. Harris, D. Xie, et al., “Preclinical Studies to Predict the Disposition of Apo2L/Tumor Necrosis Factor-Related Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand in Humans: Characterization of In Vivo Efficacy, Pharmacokinetics, and Safety,” Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 299 (2001): 31–38.
10.1016/S0022-3565(24)29298-3
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
124 R. E. Kontermann, “Half-Life Extended Biotherapeutics,” Expert Opinion on Biological Therapy 16 (2016): 903–915.
10.1517/14712598.2016.1165661
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
125 N. Muller, B. Schneider, K. Pfizenmaier, and H. Wajant, “Superior Serum Half Life of Albumin Tagged TNF Ligands,” Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications 396 (2010): 793–799.
10.1016/j.bbrc.2010.04.134
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
126 H. J. Byeon, S. Y. Min, I. Kim, et al., “Human Serum Albumin-TRAIL Conjugate for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis,” Bioconjugate Chemistry 25 (2014): 2212–2221.
10.1021/bc500427g
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
127 R. Li, H. Yang, D. Jia, et al., “Fusion to an Albumin-Binding Domain With a High Affinity for Albumin Extends the Circulatory Half-Life and Enhances the In Vivo Antitumor Effects of Human TRAIL,” Journal of Controlled Release 228 (2016): 96–106.
10.1016/j.jconrel.2016.03.004
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
128 J. T. Ryman and B. Meibohm, “Pharmacokinetics of Monoclonal Antibodies,” CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology 6 (2017): 576–588.
10.1002/psp4.12224
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
129 B. L. Duivelshof, A. Murisier, J. Camperi, et al., “Therapeutic Fc-Fusion Proteins: Current Analytical Strategies,” Journal of Separation Science 44 (2021): 35–62.
10.1002/jssc.202000765
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
130 H. Wang, J. S. Davis, and X. Wu, “Immunoglobulin Fc Domain Fusion to TRAIL Significantly Prolongs Its Plasma Half-Life and Enhances Its Antitumor Activity,” Molecular Cancer Therapeutics 13 (2014): 643–650.
10.1158/1535-7163.MCT-13-0645
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
131 H. Yang, Y. Feng, H. Cai, et al., “Endogenous IgG-Based Affinity-Controlled Release of TRAIL Exerts Superior Antitumor Effects,” Theranostics 8 (2018): 2459–2476.
10.7150/thno.23880
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
132 A. G. Quiroz-Reyes, P. Delgado-Gonzalez, J. F. Islas, J. L. D. Gallegos, J. H. Martinez Garza, and E. N. Garza-Trevino, “Behind the Adaptive and Resistance Mechanisms of Cancer Stem Cells to TRAIL,” Pharmaceutics 13 (2021): 1062.
10.3390/pharmaceutics13071062
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
133 Y. V. Lomovskaya, M. I. Kobyakova, A. S. Senotov, et al., “Macrophage-Like THP-1 Cells Derived From High-Density Cell Culture Are Resistant to TRAIL-Induced Cell Death via Down-Regulation of Death-Receptors DR4 and DR5,” Biomolecules 12 (2022): 150.
10.3390/biom12020150
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
134 A. A. Artykov, A. V. Yagolovich, D. A. Dolgikh, M. P. Kirpichnikov, D. B. Trushina, and M. E. Gasparian, “Death Receptors DR4 and DR5 Undergo Spontaneous and Ligand-Mediated Endocytosis and Recycling Regardless of the Sensitivity of Cancer Cells to TRAIL,” Frontiers in Cell and Development Biology 9 (2021): 733688.
10.3389/fcell.2021.733688
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
135 L. M. Humphreys, J. P. Fox, C. A. Higgins, et al., “A Revised Model of TRAIL-R2 DISC Assembly Explains How FLIP(L) can Inhibit or Promote Apoptosis,” EMBO Reports 21 (2020): e49254.
10.15252/embr.201949254
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
136 I. Kapoor, J. Bodo, B. T. Hill, E. D. Hsi, and A. Almasan, “Targeting BCL-2 in B-Cell Malignancies and Overcoming Therapeutic Resistance,” Cell Death & Disease 11 (2020): 941.
10.1038/s41419-020-03144-y
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
137 S. Kumar, C. Fairmichael, D. B. Longley, and R. C. Turkington, “The Multiple Roles of the IAP Super-Family in Cancer,” Pharmacology & Therapeutics 214 (2020): 107610.
10.1016/j.pharmthera.2020.107610
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
138 D. Lawrence, Z. Shahrokh, S. Marsters, et al., “Differential Hepatocyte Toxicity of Recombinant Apo2L/TRAIL Versions,” Nature Medicine 7 (2001): 383–385.
10.1038/86397
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
139 H. Tang, Y. Qin, J. Li, and X. Gong, “The Scavenging of Superoxide Radicals Promotes Apoptosis Induced by a Novel Cell-Permeable Fusion Protein, sTRAIL:FeSOD, in Tumor Necrosis Factor-Related Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand-Resistant Leukemia Cells,” BMC Biology 9 (2011): 18.
10.1186/1741-7007-9-18
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
140 J. S. Pieczykolan, K. Kubinski, M. Maslyk, et al., “AD-O53.2—A Novel Recombinant Fusion Protein Combining the Activities of TRAIL/Apo2L and Smac/Diablo, Overcomes Resistance of Human Cancer Cells to TRAIL/Apo2L,” Investigational New Drugs 32 (2014): 1155–1166.
10.1007/s10637-014-0153-y
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
141 B. M. Zerek, M. Szymanik, P. K. Rozga, et al., “Abstract 2773: AD-O56.9: A Fusion of TRAIL/Apo2L With a Membrane Disrupting Peptide as a Novel Anticancer Therapeutic,” Cancer Research 74 (2014): 2773.
10.1158/1538-7445.AM2014-2773
PubMed Google Scholar
142 J. Zhang, W. Dong, Y. Ren, and D. Wei, “SAC-TRAIL, a Novel Anticancer Fusion Protein: Expression, Purification, and Functional Characterization,” Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology 106 (2022): 1511–1520.
10.1007/s00253-022-11807-3
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
143 M. Sang, J. Zhang, B. Li, and Y. Chen, “TRAIL-CM4 Fusion Protein Shows In Vitro Antibacterial Activity and a Stronger Antitumor Activity Than Solo TRAIL Protein,” Protein Expression and Purification 122 (2016): 82–89.
10.1016/j.pep.2016.02.015
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
144 C. L. Zuch de Zafra, A. Ashkenazi, W. C. Darbonne, et al., “Antitherapeutic Antibody-Mediated Hepatotoxicity of Recombinant Human Apo2L/TRAIL in the Cynomolgus Monkey,” Cell Death & Disease 7 (2016): e2338.
10.1038/cddis.2016.241
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
145 K. P. Papadopoulos, R. Isaacs, S. Bilic, et al., “Unexpected Hepatotoxicity in a Phase I Study of TAS266, a Novel Tetravalent Agonistic Nanobody(R) Targeting the DR5 Receptor,” Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology 75 (2015): 887–895.
10.1007/s00280-015-2712-0
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
146 H. Wang, C. Geng, H. Zhou, Z. Zhang, and W. Chen, “Cyclopamine Sensitizes Multiple Myeloma Cells to Circularly Permuted TRAIL-Induced Apoptosis,” Oncology Letters 21 (2021): 295.
10.3892/ol.2021.12556
PubMed Google Scholar
147 D. Merino, N. Lalaoui, A. Morizot, P. Schneider, E. Solary, and O. Micheau, “Differential Inhibition of TRAIL-Mediated DR5-DISC Formation by Decoy Receptors 1 and 2,” Molecular and Cellular Biology 26 (2006): 7046–7055.
10.1128/MCB.00520-06
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
148 L. O'Leary, A. M. van der Sloot, C. R. Reis, et al., “Decoy Receptors Block TRAIL Sensitivity at a Supracellular Level: The Role of Stromal Cells in Controlling Tumour TRAIL Sensitivity,” Oncogene 35 (2016): 1261–1270.
10.1038/onc.2015.180
PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
149 R. Yu, S. M. Albarenque, R. H. Cool, W. J. Quax, A. Mohr, and R. M. Zwacka, “DR4 Specific TRAIL Variants Are More Efficacious Than Wild-Type TRAIL in Pancreatic Cancer,” Cancer Biology & Therapy 15 (2014): 1658–1666.
10.4161/15384047.2014.972183
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
150 A. V. Yagolovich, A. A. Artykov, T. A. Karmakova, et al., “Genetically Modified DR5-Specific TRAIL Variant DR5-B Revealed Dual Antitumor and Protumoral Effect in Colon Cancer Xenografts and an Improved Pharmacokinetic Profile,” Translational Oncology 13 (2020): 100762.
10.1016/j.tranon.2020.100762
PubMed Google Scholar
151 K. Yu, C. Liu, B. G. Kim, and D. Y. Lee, “Synthetic Fusion Protein Design and Applications,” Biotechnology Advances 33 (2015): 155–164.
10.1016/j.biotechadv.2014.11.005
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
152 A. A. Artykov, D. A. Belov, V. O. Shipunova, et al., “Chemotherapeutic Agents Sensitize Resistant Cancer Cells to the DR5-Specific Variant DR5-B More Efficiently Than to TRAIL by Modulating the Surface Expression of Death and Decoy Receptors,” Cancers (Basel) 12 (2020): 1129.
10.3390/cancers12051129
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
153 D. Baran, M. G. Pszolla, G. D. Lapidoth, et al., “Principles for Computational Design of Binding Antibodies,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 114 (2017): 10900–10905.
10.1073/pnas.1707171114
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
154 R. Burikhanov, Y. Zhao, A. Goswami, S. Qiu, S. R. Schwarze, and V. M. Rangnekar, “The Tumor Suppressor Par-4 Activates an Extrinsic Pathway for Apoptosis,” Cell 138 (2009): 377–388.
10.1016/j.cell.2009.05.022
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
155 L. C. Crowley, B. J. Marfell, A. P. Scott, and N. J. Waterhouse, “Quantitation of Apoptosis and Necrosis by Annexin V Binding, Propidium Iodide Uptake, and Flow Cytometry,” Cold Spring Harbor Protocols 11 (2016): pdb prot087288.
10.1101/pdb.prot087288
Google Scholar
156 M. Figiel, P. Bonarek, A. Gorecki, et al., “Improved Cytotoxicity of Novel TRAIL Variants Produced as Recombinant Fusion Proteins,” Protein Engineering, Design & Selection 31 (2018): 37–46.
10.1093/protein/gzx065
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
157 S. C. Gampa, S. V. Garimella, and S. Pandrangi, “Nano-TRAIL: APromising Path to Cancer Therapy,” Cancer Drug Resistance 6 (2023): 78–102.
10.20517/cdr.2022.82
CAS PubMed Google Scholar
158 T. M. Ganten, R. Koschny, J. Sykora, et al., “Preclinical Differentiation Between Apparently Safe and Potentially Hepatotoxic Applications of TRAIL Either Alone or in Combination With Chemotherapeutic Drugs,” Clinical Cancer Research 12 (2006): 2640–2646.
10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-05-2635
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
159 G. J. Gores and S. H. Kaufmann, “Is TRAIL Hepatotoxic?,” Hepatology 34 (2001): 3–6.
10.1053/jhep.2001.25173a
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
160 Y. Guo, A. Roohullah, J. Xue, et al., “First-In-Human (FIH) Phase I Studies of SCB-313, a Novel TNF-Related Apoptosis-Inducing Ligand TRAIL-Trimer Fusion Protein, for Treatment of Patients (Pts) With Malignant Ascites (MA),” Cancer Research 82 (2022): 6180.
10.1158/1538-7445.AM2022-6180
Google Scholar
161 M. Huang, H. Zhu, C. Yi, et al., “A Novel TRAIL Mutant-TRAIL-Mu3 Enhances the Antitumor Effects by the Increased Affinity and the Up-Expression of DR5 in Pancreatic Cancer,” Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology 82 (2018): 829–838.
10.1007/s00280-018-3658-9
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
162 X. Huang, C. Ou, Y. Shu, et al., “A Self-Sustained Nanoplatform Reverses TRAIL-Resistance of Pancreatic Cancer Through Coactivating of Exogenous and Endogenous Apoptotic Pathway,” Biomaterials 272 (2021): 120795.
10.1016/j.biomaterials.2021.120795
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
163 H. Je, G. H. Nam, G. B. Kim, et al., “Overcoming Therapeutic Efficiency Limitations Against TRAIL-Resistant Tumors Using Re-Sensitizing Agent-Loaded Trimeric TRAIL-Presenting Nanocages,” Journal of Controlled Release 331 (2021): 7–18.
10.1016/j.jconrel.2021.01.016
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
164 T. M. Kauer, J. L. Figueiredo, S. Hingtgen, and K. Shah, “Encapsulated Therapeutic Stem Cells Implanted in the Tumor Resection Cavity Induce Cell Death in Gliomas,” Nature Neuroscience 15 (2011): 197–204.
10.1038/nn.3019
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
165 Y. Leng, J. Hou, J. Jin, et al., “Circularly Permuted TRAIL Plus Thalidomide and Dexamethasone Versus Thalidomide and Dexamethasone for Relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma: APhase 2 Study,” Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology 79 (2017): 1141–1149.
10.1007/s00280-017-3310-0
CAS PubMed Web of Science® Google Scholar
166 F. Li, X. Wang, M. Wu, et al., “Biosynthetic Cell Membrane Vesicles to Enhance TRAIL-Mediated Apoptosis Driven by Photo-Triggered Oxidative Stress,” Biomaterials Science 10 (2022): 3547–3558.
10.1039/D2BM00599A
CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Citing Literature

Volume14, Issue1

January 2025

e70517

Turn TRAIL Into Better Anticancer Therapeutic Through TRAIL Fusion Proteins